Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
that in total to our adversaries. in this case, it is the taliban. to get to your point about afghanistan being a base for al qaeda, it has been the goal of the administration to eliminate afghanistan as a base for al qaeda and similar elements. it remains to be seen if they can do that. a drawdown will make it more difficult for us to accomplish that in the long run. host: a couple comments on twitter, asking questions about positive accomplishments. guest: the surge was designed to replicate what happened in iraq. in iraq, you had a situation with the anbar awakening. you had the situation, being in, using local forces in order to gain the upper hand against the extremists, whether they were affiliated with al qaeda or were local sympathizers with saddam hussein. that basically worked from a military perspective. when you go to afghanistan, the time when general petraeus became the commander, the attempt was made to replicate what happened. the results were mixed. you had similar afghan units in several provinces that have been turned into a pretty decent area of success for our research effo
is aced on numbers. do you have a correct report? is this leading to a reductiothg in handling the taliban. [no audio >> this was a regrettable error. we are making adjustments. in spite of the adjustments, our assessment of the progress and is continuing.anistan we have pushed the taliban out of the population centers and they have failed to retake the areas they lost. this is true. our and the lead and have provided security for 87% of the country's population. there is a tendency to fixate on one metrics. the complete picture of progress in afghanistan is more nuanced. i would encourage you to look at the overall picture. we are looking to fix this error. we will report further information as we have it from kabul. >> does the report need to be fixed? >> we will take a look at adjustments that need to be made. >> does it call into question the statistics? forces are in the lead increasingly. they are entering the numbers. many people have acknowledged the problem. do you have to do it closer review of the statistics that have been cited repeatedly? >> i do not know that we have to under
the isaf numbers that they said their correct in the numbers on a number of taliban attacks last year. a couple questions. the report to congress is based on our numbers, are you going to correct a report? also, does this lead to a rethinking about sure strength of the taliban, given you miscalculated the tax initiative? >> this is a regrettable error that was discovered during a routine quality check. making the appropriate adjustments. the fact that 80% of the violence taking place in areas remains unchanged. as we've said repeatedly, we pushed the taliban out of the population centers and they've failed to retake any areas they lost during the surgeon this remains true. additionally, the trend to currently are annoyed for the vast majority of operations and have taken a leading role in providing security for 87% of the country's population. there's a tendency to fixate on one metric, a particular database number or insider attacks are casualties. the complete picture process in afghanistan is more nuanced and i would encourage you to look at the overall picture. we're looking to fi
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely pilotted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield at least when the country involved con cents or is unwilling to take action against a threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here, i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principle of the law of war that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts such as them and the
it said local taliban was working with warlords to provide guards and weapons for the use of the contract. it came out that they were failing to adequately investigate the previous employment which resulted in the company's hiring individuals who previously had been fired for sharing sensitive information. security information with the taliban war lords and failure to appropriately some of according to the u.s. intelligence reports may have been involved in anti-american activity. all of that information was out in a classified we several weeks before it to attend comes out of 28 and was out in public of september 28th. guess who the state department gave the contract to for guarding them on the 29th. the eodt and then the were fired for never performing because they couldn't perform accurately. they wanted to litigate. meanwhile guess who is still guarding. we had egis guarding which was another contract of kabul. we still have armored troops then we did a contract with the jet. they finally took over the summer. i urge you all to take a look and you do not have to come secretary, you ca
. but the public report came out on september 28. and in that report it said that local taliban was working with war lords to provide guards and weapons for use in the contract. it came out they were failing to adequately investigate the forwards' previous employment which resulted in hiring individuals who had been fired for sharing sensitive information, security information work taliban war lords. failure to appropriately vet guards, some of whom, according to u.s. intelligence reports, may have been involved in anti-american activities. now all of that information was out in the classified way several weeks before september 10, excuse me, september 28, an was out in public september 28.
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6